Marco Rubio on the Earth's age: 'I'm not a scientist'

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declined to firmly answer a question of existential importance in an interview released Monday.

An interviewer for GQ magazine asked the Republican, a Catholic and potential 2016 presidential candidate, how old planet Earth is. Rubio didn’t give a direct answer, but suggested children should be exposed to both scientific and religious theories.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Messina on 2016, GOP future

“I’m not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the magazine. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.

“At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says,” he continued. “Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

The question of the Earth’s age and its origins are an occasional flare-up in the culture wars. Using radiometric dating, scientists have determine the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. But fundamentalist Christians hold that the Earth was created in six days, as detailed in the Bible.

Readers' Comments (299)

Rubio has already been to Iowa and now he's engaging in the cultural-religious issues (albeit straddling the fence which makes him sound like a wuss). Can't we have at least six months before the candidates for 2016 start campaigning?

If you aspire to be head of NASA, NIH, the scientific wing of the military, and just about every technology-driven agency from Agriculture to State, you sure the Hell better believe in dinosaurs to get my vote.

That is a remarkably stupid answer. Geology and similar sciences are called the "natural" sciences, because they are the study of nature and the "laws of nature. By definition, änything God does that might change those laws is "supernatural" and thus outside the scope of a science class.Science doesn't belong in the religous class and religon doen't belong in the science class.

I love how the media continues to act as if there is either a strictly secular atheistic theory for how the Earth was created to which ALL scientists adhere, and a strictly religious theory based upon literal interpretation of the Bible and wholly incompatible with science to which ALL religious people adhere…and that there's no middle ground between the two positions whatsoever.

In any case, Rubio is right. The question is wholly irrelevant. And people on both sides should read their constitutions and discover that religious tests for public office are strictly prohibited by it.

"I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States."

In fact, if we think the world was recently created and will soon end, as many fundamentalist Christians do, then it is very relevant to gross domestic product, and is in fact the predomanent frame of the Christian West: The planet is ours to exploit, we are the rulers of the earth, it is our divine right to eat it up for our short term needs because that is all we are, short term renters here, which translates into pumping up our GDP by exploiting the resources of the planet (and non-Christians, by the way). On the other hand, if the planet is billions of years old, and we have the prospect of being her for billions more, or at least until we destroy it, then we are more inclined to define success not by quarterly profit and GDP rates but by multigenerational sustainability, and thus be far more concerned about having a light impact on the earth (and the other peoples with whom we have to share it indefinitely).

So, yes, your understanding of science does make a difference to GDP, especially if you want to be president.

Your comment and that of RexWrecks express my feelings as well. Such evasion might do well if you were a direction of a pseudoscience museum that denied the vast bodies of literature in evolution, geology and chemistry, but not as a leader of a "first world" nation.

You don't need to be a scientist to answer a question like that. It is a matter of general knowledge that anyone who attended a university should know. You can't aspire to lead this country if you show yourself as an ignorant. I would never vote for this guy. Republicans can't stop saying stupid things. Still digging, still digging....

No, it is very relivant. If you belive we are meant to exploit and control the earth and non-believers for our short-term gain you are going to make very different choices (as president) than if you belive the earth and us are here forever, and, yes, this will impact GDP.

Hey, I've heard that there are conflicting theories whether the Earth is round or flat. And I'm no scientist so I think they should teach both theories in school. I'm really scared of falling down would I reach the end of the Earth. Are there any school books anyone can recommend on how to help rescue the poor souls that went too far? I'm sure to find a not small number of GOP politicians there..: